Sujith Kumar S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3616 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3616 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 February, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sujith Kumar S vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

                                   &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                           WA.No.1275 OF 2019

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21333/2018(N)DATED 12-04-2019 OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             SUJITH KUMAR S
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O.G.SUKUMARA PANICKER, MITHILA, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O.,
             ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688009, HSST (JR.) (ENGLISH),
             T.D.H.S.S., IRON BRIDGE.P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688011,
             (ORDERED TO BE REVERTED AS HSA BY THE IMPUGNED
             ORDER).

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.BENOY THOMAS
             SRI.PAULSON THOMAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
             DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
             695001.

      2      DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

      3      REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THAMPAYATHII BUILDING,
             MUNICIPAL WARD NO.16, CHENGANNUR, PIN-689121.

      4      T.D.SCHOOLS,
             ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY CORPORATE MANAGER, T.D.SCHOOLS,
             ALAPPUZHA-688540.

      5      V.L.SURESH,
             HSA (SOCIAL STUDIES), T.D.H.S.S., IRON BRIDGE.P.O.,
             ALAPPUZHA-688011, (APPOINTED AS HSA (SOCIAL STUDIES),
 W.A.No.1275/2019                 2

               W.E.F. 05.06.2002 UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND LATER
               TRANSFERRED AS EDUCATIONAL TRAINER AT T.T.I.,
               THURAVOOR, W.E.F. 01.06.2009 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AS
               HSA (SOCIAL STUDIES), W.E.F. JUNE, 2016).

               R1-3 BY SRI.A.J. VARGHESE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
               R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
               R4 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
               R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
               R5 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
               R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE
               R5 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
               R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
               R5 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA

OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. A.J. VARGHESE-SR. G.P.-R1-R3

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1275/2019                       3



                                                              (CR)

                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

Shaffique, J.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated

12.04.2019 in W.P.(C)No.21333/2018. The appellant was appointed

as HSA (English) in a School managed by Corporate Agency on

1.6.2009. A vacancy of HSST (Junior) in English language had arisen

in one of the schools in 2015. The Manager originally appointed the

petitioner as HSST (Junior) English on 2.11.2015. The 5 th respondent

being a senior in the category of HSA and teaching Social Science,

objected to the appointment of the appellant. The matter was

considered by the competent authorities and they have approved the

appointment of the 5th respondent as HSST (Junior) by Ext.P9. The

approval of appointment of the appellant was rejected and

accordingly, he was reverted to the post of HSA (English). The writ

petition came to be filed challenging the order of rejection inter alia

contending that as per Rule 4(3) of the Chapter XXXII of KER, the

5th respondent was not eligible to be appointed to the post of HSST

(Junior) in English though he was senior, but working as HSA (Social

Science), which was not in the "subject concerned" under the

Educational Agency. The learned single Judge, after placing

reliance on the judgment in Geetha v. State of Kerala (2012(1)KLT

829), dismissed the writ petition.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the

learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing

for the 5th respondent. The main contention urged by the appellant is

that for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher

(Junior) from qualified hands, certainly, seniority is a matter. But

the seniority of such teachers should be in the concerned subject.

The 5th respondent was working as HSA (Social Science) whereas the

appellant was working as HSA (English) and therefore, when the

appointment is made to the post of HSST (Junior) English, definitely

the seniority in the language which is the subject concerned requires

to be taken into consideration.

3. We cannot agree with the aforesaid contention. Rule

4(3)(1)(i) of Chapter XXXII of KER reads as under:-

3 Higher Secondary 1. (i) By transfer from qualified High School School Teacher (Junior) Assistants in the subject concerned under the Educational Agency.

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that when a by

transfer appointment is made to the post of HSST (Junior) what is

required is a qualified High School Assistant in the subject

concerned. The words "subject concerned" only indicates whether he

was eligible to teach English language as HSST. If he is eligible to

teach English language, definitely, he becomes qualified for by

transfer appointment especially when the seniority is the criteria.

There is no dispute about the fact that 5 th respondent is senior to the

appellant. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge was

justified in rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Geetha

(supra) lays down the correct law. We do not find any ground to

interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.